4 min read

John Danaher is a former assistant U.S. attorney and former commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Public Safety and was a judge of the Connecticut Superior Court from 2010 to 2020. He lives in Cape Elizabeth.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, rejected the current administration’s effort to restrict mail-in voting. The president reportedly responded to the decision by stating, in pertinent part, that the Supreme Court demonstrated an “inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our country….”

Further statements attributed to the president include a claim that the Supreme Court “is bullied and cajoled by the radical left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years.” The president allegedly asserted that the justices whom he nominated are “not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court … [and that] this criticism of the United States Supreme Court … [is his] obligation and duty, as president, to do so for the America we love.”

There is much to unpack in the statements attributed to the president. It is not unusual to hear and read statements by citizens, elected officials and respected news organizations that a particular court decision is “bad.” Unfortunately, it frequently appears that a decision is perceived to be “bad” for illegitimate reasons.

A court decision is “bad” if it is not grounded on established fact. It is “bad” if it does not conform to the law, or if it ignores binding precedent. It is neither “good” nor “bad” because the person commenting on the decision either likes or doesn’t like the outcome.

No judge or justice should decide a case on the basis of supposed loyalty to the person who nominated the judge or justice for judicial office. Any judge who does so violates his or her oath of office. When the president’s followers brought lawsuits challenging the result of the 2020 election, 61 of the 62 lawsuits filed were either dismissed, withdrawn or decided against the president and his campaign.

Many of the judges who ruled against Trump had been nominated by the president, and their nominations were supported by United States senators who were Republicans. There is no basis to conclude that those judges should have ruled differently on the basis of who appointed them to serve on the bench.

Implying that judges should rule in a manner that pleases the person who nominated them reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule of law, the separation of powers and the principle — essential to the existence of a true democracy — that in the United States we believe in, and support, an independent judiciary.

In the United States, our system of checks and balances depends upon each branch of government respecting the role of the other two branches. No branch of government is “more equal” than either of the other two branches.

While serving as United States attorney for the District of Connecticut, I authorized the indictment and prosecution of the mayor of Waterbury, Connecticut, who was a Republican. In addition, I authorized the indictment and prosecution of the mayor of Bridgeport, Connecticut, who was a Democrat.

Both men were ultimately convicted of criminal offenses. No politician ever criticized
me, either publicly or privately, for pursuing either of those prosecutions. That is how a democracy is supposed to work.

Years later, while serving as a judge of the Connecticut Superior Court, I may well have made decisions that were not what the governor would have liked to see, but if so, neither she nor anyone acting on her behalf ever conveyed such thoughts to me, even though she had nominated me to serve as a judge. That, too, is how a democracy is supposed to work.

The United States Supreme Court is one of three co-equal branches of our government. To suggest that it is in any way beholden to either of the other two branches reflects, at a minimum, a failure to understand one of the most basic premises of the United States Constitution. At worst, it reflects an effort to convince the public that we do not have, nor should we have, an independent judiciary.

If our judiciary does not act independently, then we will have lost one of our most important checks against unbridled power being exercised by another branch of government. It is not the “obligation” of the president to criticize any justice of the United States Supreme Court on the basis of insufficient “loyalty.”

On the contrary, it is the obligation of the president to respect and honor justices who abide by their oath of office.